From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 26, 2008
52 A.D.3d 1136 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 503784.

June 26, 2008.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Milano, J.), entered September 4, 2007, which denied claimant's application pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) for permission to file a late notice of claim.

Josh Brown, Romulus, appellant pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Treasure of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Peters, J.P., Spain, Carpinello and Malone Jr., JJ.


Claimant, a prison inmate, alleges that on February 27, 2006 he was discriminated against due to his sexual orientation and, in violation of his rights prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment under the US Constitution 8th Amendment, he was denied adequate medical care when a nurse practitioner at Clinton Correctional Facility in Clinton County denied his request for pain medication and refused to order him a brassiere. After failing to timely file either a notice of claim or a notice of intention, claimant sought permission to file a late notice of claim. The Court of Claims denied the application and claimant now appeals.

We affirm. "The Court of Claims is vested with broad discretion to grant or deny a motion for permission to file a late claim following the consideration of the statutory factors enumerated in Court of Claims Act § 10 (6)" ( Matter of Gonzalez v State of New York, 299 AD2d 675, 675 [citation omitted]; accord Matter of Robinson v State of New York, 35 AD3d 948, 949). While no single statutory factor is considered controlling, the denial of an application will not be disturbed where "the excuse offered for the delay is inadequate and the proposed claim is of questionable merit" ( Matter of Gonzalez v State of New York, 299 AD2d at 675; see Matter of P.A. v State of New York, 277 AD2d 671, 672). After a thorough review of the record, we cannot conclude that the Court of Claims abused its discretion in denying claimant's application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Brown v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 26, 2008
52 A.D.3d 1136 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Brown v. State

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JOSH BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jun 26, 2008

Citations

52 A.D.3d 1136 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 5841
860 N.Y.S.2d 677

Citing Cases

Williams v. State

Here, significantly absent from claimant's application is something more than movant's own self-serving…

Venable v. State

"No one factor is deemed controlling, nor is the presence or absence of any one factor dispositive" (Broncati…